Changes

It is the end of an era here at The Futurist. As long-time readers know, this has been a blog of two individual bloggers who did not distinguish themselves from each other. This was a worthwhile experiment at the inception of the website in early 2006. But now, the goals have changed. The technology blogger will be the primary blogger here, taking a slightly different direction for this site. The political blogger has, for the most part, retired from blogging, and has discontinued participation in some of his other online communities (such as anti-misandry).

The technology blogger has been working on a related project of much more comprehensive scope, and will be linking it here to The Futurist. Hence, this blog will be primarily devoted to technological and economic topics, with very little political content going forward. Both bloggers will write under their real names.

From Imran Khan (the political blogger) :

Many of my fans from the anti-misandry sphere have wondered why I drifted away from there in 2014. Well, it was a combination of several factors :

1) My Work There Was Done : The predictions in The Misandry Bubble were solidified and part of the DNA of the 'androsphere'. Existing bloggers keep up with current events and parse the news through the anti-misandry filter, but my contribution was just comments, after The Misandry Bubble over 6 years ago. Over time, much of the content in the androsphere trends toward repetition. When 2020 arrives, we will do an assessment scorecard of the predictions made a decade prior.

2) Not Enough Activism : Anti-misandry ideas have spread to the mainstream through the effort of some great bloggers (like Dalrock and PM/AFT). But too many of the other participants do far too little beyond Internet commenting. I mentioned this in The Misandry Bubble about 'Why There is no Men's Rights Movement', and this continues to be true. I even invented a strategy and campaign uniquely tailored to operate within the constraints of anonymity, cost, and decentralization that were needed for any real Men's Rights Activism, but only half a dozen men did the legwork despite everyone hailing it as highly effective. To this day, there is minimal activism beyond about five key people, while far smaller causes immediately manage to get the apparatus of activism established.

3) Too Much Infighting : The blogs I commented at do an admirable job of attracting and keeping civil commenters. But elsewhere, some major figure in the androsphere is in an acrimonious battle with another almost every month. The reasons are usually just poor communication between the two parties. For a community of just 300 or so active participants that is up against an evil that outnumbers and outspends them by a ratio of several million to one, there is too much wasteful infighting among people who agree on 90% of their views. Such a 'movement' makes little real movement.

4) Too Much Anger Towards Average Women : As The Misandry Bubble states, the hierarchy of misandric zeal is Hardcore 'Feminist' > Mangina > Average Woman. The average woman does not seethe with a desire to harm any and all males the way a full-time 'feminist' does. The average woman just wants to side with whoever is winning, which is an evolutionary mechanism that helped women survive. I always maintained that ordinary women were being harmed by 'feminism' just as much as ordinary men, since what average women value most has been taken away from them by 'feminists'. As I have maintained, it is impossible to harm one gender without harming the other.

Some parts of the 'sphere have too much anger towards average women, and too little towards the sleazy men who think groveling to 'feminists' will improve their social status. These 'manginas' are universally hated by normal men, normal women, and even hardcore 'feminists', yet do most of the heavy-lifting that keeps the hate-cult going. If there is an Achilles heel that can be attacked to bring the edifice down, it is these manginas. The inability of Men's Rights to focus on the weakest target ensures a lack of progress. Speaking of manginas....

5) Too Many Neo-Nazis : The androsphere has been infested by a strain of Neo-Nazis (describing themselves as 'white nationalists') who are both racial supremacists and economic leftists. Their views are wrong on both of those counts, but that is not even the worst thing about them. They are antithetical to the notion of Men's Rights since they believe that a woman of their race is far more valuable than a man, to the extent of being a goddess. It is apparent that any ethno-centric ideology will default to an obsession with fertility rates, and since women are the scarcer reproductive resource, such ideologies invariably become nothing more than fertility goddess cults. This is true, of course, of any ethno-centric ideology, not just whites. In fact, it is a testament to white maturity that 'white nationalists' never get any real traction among their own population. This is precisely why whites are successful - they do a better job marginalizing their own degenerates than other groups do.

My debates with the Neo-Nazis were funny. I would routinely point out that 90% of American whites are just not racist, and they would counter that they indeed are, contrary to my observation. In other words, I would insist that their group is not racist, which they see as a bad thing (as it explains their poor recruitment), leading them to insist that more whites are. And I am not just brown, but a Muslim too.

Remember that 'white nationalism' recruits only the least successful white men, almost entirely due to their desire to obstruct a white woman's choice to date outside her race. This is leftist protectionism demanded by uncompetitive actors, nothing more. The coup de grace I apply in such debates is to point out that there is almost zero female participation in 'white nationalism', despite it being an ideology wholly dependent on white women having more babies. The hilarity of an ideology built around higher reproduction nonetheless finding itself to be 98-99% male is self-evident. Women have a natural radar that steers them away from loserdom, and manginas (whether general or Neo-Nazi) always create this effect.

Since the ideologies of Neo-Nazis and 'feminists' have substantial overlap, Men's Rights cannot advance without a purge of these Neo-Nazis.Over time, this purge will happen, but my time is better spent elsewhere.

6) The Futurist has a Different Destiny : My technology co-blogger has created something of grand purpose, something so profound that it has a higher significance. It is valuable enough that this website should be devoted exclusively to it, without tangential distractions, given that he is more of a political moderate than I.

For these reasons, my participation in the androsphere has drawn to a close. The Misandry Bubble will remain where it is, but it should be seen as a time capsule of predictions, to be opened 10 years hence from original publication.

Comments

Sad to hear this! I've been checking back here quite a bit recently, hoping to see a new post with some of your trademark Superman X-ray vision style insight into the forces at work behind current political events.

I eagerly look forward to more accurate tech predictions in your new venture. Thank you both for over a decade of excellent work!

"They are antithetical to the notion of Men's Rights since they believe that a woman of their race is far more valuable than a man, to the extent of being a goddess. It is apparent that any ethno-centric ideology will default to an obsession with fertility rates, and since women are the scarcer reproductive resource, such ideologies invariably become nothing more than fertility goddess cults."

You are correct about this, and it is a form of white-knighting. Women are choosing to sleep with whoever they want, it is not "The Jews" or whoeverthefuck turning corrupting these "princesses" - they're doing it themselves, and they don't care about the white race as an abstract concept: just their own hypergamy. However, this is where my agreement with you ends.

"In fact, it is a testament to white maturity that 'white nationalists' never get any real traction among their own population. This is precisely why whites are successful - they do a better job marginalizing their own degenerates than other groups do."

I'm not a white supremacist but this is clearly not true. In fact it's quite the contrary, white people dominated the world in a time when they literally believed they were genetically superior to the lesser races. They discouraged miscegenation (which women picked up on and propagated themselves, showing disgust for negroes and aversion to the idea) because women will do what it takes to fit in to the society they were born in to - they are "containers", as Roosh V put it. I'm not white knighting women here and saying they have been misled by "The Jews" or whatever into being attracted to ethnicities they otherwise wouldn't -- I'm saying, from a neutral standpoint, women can be either for it or against it, depending on whether the males in the population enforce a stigma attached with it, or it is openly encouraged, as is our society.

"My debates with the Neo-Nazis were funny. I would routinely point out that 90% of American whites are just not racist, and they would counter that they indeed are, contrary to my observation. In other words, I would insist that their group is not racist, which they see as a bad thing (as it explains their poor recruitment), leading them to insist that more whites are."

Again, this is largely cultural: 100 years ago, most white males were racist. Most countries on the planet still harbor xenophobic populations. You are simply pointing out that we live in a culture where it is severely stigmatized (and in some countries illegal) to be racist, or actively pro-white, and then proudly proclaiming that this is the case.

"And I am not just brown, but a Muslim too."

And thus we get to the root cause of why you wrote this: it is simply not in your interest to be pro-white, which is perfectly fine, while you shame white men for caring about the demographics of countries that were at one point 95% white. You only take your evo-psych so far. Allow me to elaborate.

There are IQs differences too. I don't want to get in to that. You can find the data if you want: and it's not made up bullshit. You can ignore cities like Detroit if you want and put it down to cultural differences. But the IQ differences, no, you can't ignore that, and by all standards, it seems people of African descent, for the most part, struggle with building civilized societies. But does that make you a low value male? Because you observe facts and make an assessment for the betterment of your society? Yes, according to you.

It's a shame really, because your Misandry Bubble article is brilliant, and was the article that jump-started my journey into the androsphere. I owe a hell of a lot to you. But you only go so far with the evo-psych, it applies to some areas, but not to others. I guess it would be too much for your ego to handle the rest.

1) You seem to be equating blacks with all non-whites.
2) IQ is a very flawed and overrated measurement. Remember that the test has been revised many times to ensure that women can score the same average IQ as men, even though 100% of all innovations that move civilization forward are by men. Along those lines, since Asians have higher IQs than whites, that screws up the conclusion you are drawing.

You have to recognize that blacks are very different from Asians. Plus, most Muslims are Caucasians (and many of them are white/whitish). It seems that you don't know this, and you see all non-whites as African blacks.

I guess it would be too much for your ego to handle the rest.

Why? I already pointed out the major flaws in your points. If IQ was that important, women would invent just as many technological wonders as men. Not to mention that only blacks have a lower IQ. All other races are about the same (if anything, Asians are higher).

I am in agreement regarding the almost solely male advances in science (and most abstract endeavors) and that the IQ manipulation to equalize women is bullshit. "The Misandry Bubble" is spot on. Perhaps the only point I'd disagree with you is on the one of beta males being the sole proprietors of pro-white beliefs. On an individual level, yes, I agree that caring what other women are doing and who they are sleeping with displays low value and is therefore a beta trait. An alpha male has options, and therefore does not care what other women are doing - he has no reason to be jealous. But on a meta-scale, on a level of the nation, of "The Tribe", is it not natural to feel a sense of revulsion, or cuckoldry, in watching the women of your tribe openly sleep with foreigners on such a large scale as to elicit a significant demographic and cultural shift in "your" society? Is the Alpha thing to do to kick back and let it happen, or to put your foot down? Rollo Tomassi over at The Rational Male wrote a fantastic post on the propensity of women to quickly switch allegiances and align themselves with invaders if their tribe were to be invaded and the men slaughtered or captured. I think it is fundamentally his most important post. (https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/)

Therefore, you can conclude that it is men who create society, and women fill the void, willfully following their own hypergamous instincts within the realm of a male created Frame. That Frame is usually one of a Tribe dominated, traditionally, by men. By men of the same cultural and genetic stock, by and large. A people. In the West, this is no longer the case. Is it beta to want to return to such a state? Does it make you insecure and low value? Am I a beta because I want to look out for my own interests as a racial group within a multicultural society, just like minority groups can and do?

1 & 2) All I was asserting was that Africans seem to struggle with building civilizations: I made it clear I was not a white supremacist.

I am aware that Asians have higher IQ scores on average than whites, or Caucasians. I really don't want to put too much emphasis on IQ as I agree it's not a perfect assessment, but according to Richard Lynn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn) who opened up the controversial idea of racial differences in intelligence, here are the scores:

"Lynn's meta-analysis lists the average IQ scores of East Asians (105), Europeans (99), the Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and indigenous peoples of the Americas each (87), Pacific Islanders (85), Middle Easterners (including South Asians and North Africans) (84), East and West Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62) and Bushmen and Pygmies (54)."

It's uncomfortably accurate in some respects. Are you saying this means nothing? It's simply a coincidence?

Of course, culture plays a role. But are there innate differences in intelligence too? From a scientific viewpoint, from an empirical one, and from a logical evolutionary standpoint (Why would evolved differences stop at the shoulders? Why should they?) it seems to be the case. As a rational person, I find it hard to ignore things like this. IIRC, Noam Chomsky's view is that even though this might be the case, on moral grounds we should ignore and deplore such data. An individual is an individual. An individual has feelings. Yes. But what does this mean for me as a white individual living in an increasingly multicultural society? What about the data regarding homogeneity and a sense of community and a sense of safety? As an empiricist, it all seems to line up. I can see it. It certainly feels like we live in less of a united society. We are in decline. And the rising societies are not like us. They are not feminists, they are not equalists, they are not multiculturalists.

We can establish the evidence (conflicting as it might be in some respects) is there: it is just heavily stigmatized. The reasons for the stigmatization are perhaps justified, perhaps they are not. The Nazis slaughtered 6 million Jewish people when they took their eugenic orgy to its logical conclusion. Does that mean the data and empirical evidence pointing towards racial differences is wrong? Does that mean it has to be taken to its logical conclusion every time it is accepted?

Again, am I a beta because I want to look out for my own interests as a racial group, just like minority groups can and do? That I want to create a society that appears to mimic one that humans seem evolved to have a propensity towards: a racially (to some extent), or at the very least, a culturally homogeneous society?

Perhaps the only point I'd disagree with you is on the one of beta males being the sole proprietors of pro-white beliefs.

They (at least the WNs that go to the androsphere) are not merely beta males, but outright manginas and complete losers. The level of woman-worship they undertake is extreme. They are, first and foremost, male feminists. Now, the ones who perhaps work on demonstrating white excellence rather than worshipping white women are different, but those don't spend their time on anti-feminist blogs insisting that white women are goddesses.

The Rational Male wrote a fantastic post on the propensity of women to quickly switch allegiances and align themselves with invaders if their tribe were to be invaded and the men slaughtered or captured

Of course. Which is why white nationalism is misguided, because they refuse to blame women for voting in all sorts of foreigners. A few WN losers like Angelo Gage call upon white men to risk harm and defend white women they don't even know, even as white women in Europe keep voting for more Muslims to come in.

It's uncomfortably accurate in some respects. Are you saying this means nothing?

Only to the extent of blacks and non-blacks (as Steve Sailer points out), due to the utter absence of blacks in *any* knowledge based industry anywhere in the world.

Within Eurasian groups, the differences are too small to matter, and this bears out in observed economic outcomes across the groups. In fact, Eurasians are many subraces within a race, but going by genetic distance, there are only two major races : blacks and Eurasians.

What about the data regarding homogeneity and a sense of community and a sense of safety?

Highly doubtful, since street crime in 19th century Europe was very high, despite full homogeneity. Plus, 'white' and 'homogenous' are not the same thing. Irish used to most emphatically be considered non-white.

Remember, the definition of 'white' keep changing in the US. The Irish were most emphatically not considered 'white' a century ago, and Italians, Jews, and Poles not until the 1970s. But now, even Hispanics and Asians are being re-classified as 'whites'. In California, there is a feverish attempt to hide Asians in 'white' data so as to conceal their success and claim that the tech industry does not have enough 'minorities' (in truth, even whites are underrepresented in tech. The only group overrepresented in Asians).

Remember that in America, whenever the 'white' population drops below 55%, the definition of 'white' is expanded to top up the number to 80%+ yet again. That has already been done three times or so.

By the 1900 definition of 'white', only 20-25% of the US population is white as of 2016..

Now, if you specify Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or the broader group of European Christians, that would be a more robust definition.

Plus, there will never be intra-white unity since there is an unusually high variance in white ability. Some white women are 9s and 10s, but many are 4s and lower. Many of the most brilliant men who built civilization are white, but all of the most hardcore manginas are white too. The variance in the white race is too high for there to be pan-white unity.

I don't think you should retire but you should refocus your political efforts. First I would like to commend you on being slightly accurate on the misandry bubble. The election of the "grab 'em by the pussy' President shows that feminism has lost its death grip over Western Civ. We have passed peak misandry by rejecting Hillary.

However, the bubble has not popped. Instead, Trump is like a pinprick to a giant balloon, which is slowly deflating. It's going to be downhill for female power from here, but there is such a long way to go and so much more damage to be done. It remains an open question if the country's female problems can be fixed before we go bankrupt or suffer a massive demographic collapse.

That said, you are correct about the racial nature political discourse is taking. Equating problems with race is simple and easy for the masses to understand, which is why loser manginas overwhelmingly gravitate to White Nationalism. It is a superficially seductive ideology that fails to understand the basic reasons the White race became successful in the first place: Christianity (which came from Jews), a fair doctrine between the sexes (which came from Christianity), moderation of war between Caucasian/White tribes (a result of Christ), and THEN the natural talents of the Caucasian genome. White Supremacists also fail to understand that the White phenotype is recessive and survives race mixing quite easily, which is why the Caucasian genome has many breeds including White, not to mention evolutionary evidence suggests the White phenotype must have occurred as a mutation that has survived recessively through race mixing ever since. (Hence most Caucasians carry Neanderthal genes)

The answer for political and technological progress is to create a society that focuses on K-selected men regardless of their race, but this is impossible for the masses to grasp. Not only do the Whites as a whole fail to understand this, but other races do not either. The only force which has proven itself capable of uniting the races of man and overcoming tribalism to any degree is a belief in Christ and a love for the Neighbor, something Islam or Talmudism does not. Without God, the White race, and virtually all of humanity, is doomed to kill each other in war. The path to God is only through Christ's teachings and Christ himself (as hard as this may be for you and many others to accept).

I will be writing much more extensively about these subjects over at the rooshvforum, and I encourage you to create an account and participate over there while you take a break from blogging. Your analytical mind will be appreciated over there. If you study history more, combined with your knowledge of genetics and sex differences, I think you'll understand how to direct the popular mind next.

You may want to add that white altruism is more of an American trait, rather than a blanket 'white' trait. It was just 100 years ago that 1.3 million white men killed each other at the Battle of the Somme (Germany vs. France + Britain). France also was the first to use chemical weapons in the war. Plus, the atrocities in the breakup of Yugoslavia were pretty recent.

If you could write an article on RoK about how WNs are manginas, and how WN is a goddess cult, that would be fantastic. I can provide a lot of links to where WNs say cuckolding is ok if it produces a white baby, etc. WNs are hence no friend of white men and white children.

One of the other reasons for WN is the wide variance we see in white talents and appearance. With women, it is true that most 9s and 10s are white or near-white. But a substantial percentage of white women are also 4s and lower. The median is not the only thing, it is the variance (note that most Asian women fall within the narrow range of 5 to 8, with very few outside of that range). Similarly, among white men, the most excellent men who built civilization are white. Yet, there is a subspecies of underachievers that is quite visible. Most hardcore manginas and radical gay activists are white. It is almost like the white race has bifurcated into two different tiers. This is why WNs want intra-white loyalty to be higher (and why successful whites are quick to eject WNs from their company), because when one has nothing in common with successful people than shared ancestry from Europe, they want that to matter more.

Most successful societies did make it easy for K-selected men to marry. The problem is that the inverse correlation between male traits that move society forward and male traits that women are attracted to is virtually exact, which is why any full democracy starts to attack any and every pillar of civilization over time, since ultimately, women would rather live in prehistoric times rather than a high-tech society.

"If you could write an article on RoK about how WNs are manginas, and how WN is a goddess cult, that would be fantastic. I can provide a lot of links to where WNs say cuckolding is ok if it produces a white baby, etc. WNs are hence no friend of white men and white children."

I will someday along these lines. How can I reliably reach you outside of this comment section?

Also I would point out to you that WW1 occurred after Europe was losing its faith in Christ, i.e. "God is dead, and we have killed Him" - Nietzsche (late 1800's). The foundations of the White race lie with Christ, which WN cannot admit, and as the foundations have eroded the house has collapsed like it was built on sand.

America, meanwhile, has "White altruism" because it remains a solid Christian nation, and which is also why it is resisting the negative social effects of modernity much better than Europe. This isn't to say huge parts of White America aren't heading for the dustbin, but if you separate the Christian parts of White America from the Non-Christian parts, you see which parts of America remain healthy and which parts do not.

I am not reachable outside of here. But if you comment on any thread no matter how old or obscure, I will see it, and others won't be able to (as they won't know which thread you commented on).

I really can't get involved in the 'sphere anymore - I spent a lot of effort to get out of it. But I will help anyone writing articles on key topics, such as why race/ethnic ideologies are inherently feminist, and why the female unrestricted female behavior is precisely antithetical to civilization.

I am extremely saddened you've decided to give up writing. I understand your reasons, but I can never adequately express the profound gratitude I have for you and your work. It was nearly 7 years ago when you first wrote the Misandry Bubble that I was a young man who felt like he was lost in the world. After I read that, so many things started to make sense and reading that legitimately changed my life. I can't even begin to imagine what my life now would be like had I never read that.

I just wanted to make this comment because I don't know how often you have someone praise your work or thank you for your contributions, but you certainly deserve the praise and recognition for what you've done. I spent so long looking for more of your work, and it deeply saddens me that you won't be producing anymore. Still, I'm grateful for what you've given us even if no more will come.

I wish you all the best in your life's endeavors, sir. Without you I can't imagine I'd be doing even half as well as I am now.

Thanks, Wes. It is good to know that it has helped people. Sometimes I wonder if I should have spent so much time on that, but this sort of note means that it is good I did.

I will still be helping the cause in anonymous ways, and I will do a recap of the Misandry Bubble predictions once 2020 rolls around (most predictions seem to be on track).

Be sure to go to other places in the 'sphere whenever you have questions. Dalrock's is a good place (even if his content is Christian, it is still an open forum for any and all men's issues-related questions).